Debating (And We Mean Really Debating) JAMES DEAN — again.

Hello, everybody. Joe Morella and Frank Segers, your classic movie guys, here today to say that it had to happen. And it has.

A while ago we ran blogs raising the point that James Dean’s acting reputation is overblown. See James Dean — Really A Good Actor?, Sept. 22, 2011; and the following Oct. 12’s Readers Sound Off — About James Dean and MGM.

Until the last week or so, our Dean criticisms were met with, shall we say, a muted reader response. But that has changed.

To provide some backround, we’ll cover just a bit of what we wrote about Dean earlier. The pictures that made Dean were three: director Elia Kazan’s “East of Eden,” NicholasRay’s “Rebel Without A Cause” with Natalie Wood (both in 1955) and George Stevens’ “Giant,” released after the actor’s death. Dean was nominated in the best actor Oscar category for the first and the third but didn’t win.

For our money, Rock Hudson walked off with “Giant,” handily out performing costars Elizabeth Taylor and Dean. It was pretty much all Dean’s show in the other two films. Taking a hard nosed look at “Eden” and “Rebel” today prompts the notion that dying early might have been a terrific career move.

Dean’s performances in each film are certainly competent, but unquestionably marred by Methody acting schtick that was considered at the time the mark of a truly serious actor.

There is a self-indulgent, almost infantile aspect to Deans’s performances, particularly in “Rebel,” that’s off putting. Some contemporary viewers might react by giving his character — and perhaps Dean himself — a swift kick in his pants with the admonition, Grow up!

Well, our views were echoed by one reader, and chastized by another. Since we love to receive reader responses (good, bad or indifferent) we are running each below. Off key writes the following:

Fair enough, Off key. But forgetting the Dean hype, why does he bother you so?

Ok, now to a lengthy response from another reader, Anonymous:

Guys…let’s cut the BS. Your semantically wanking off with the “legend” vs. “actor” argument….it’s lame. Who the hell do you think your talking about here? Michael Parks? Christopher Jones? JAMES DARREN?

Just admit it…you’re threatened by the attraction you don’t want to admit you so deeply have. Remarks like “oh-so vulnerable looks” give the game away, as well as such gems as “Methody-schtick” and “Rock Hudson’sthe best thing in “Giant”. That remark would get you laughed out of the dumbest film school in Iowa, let alone about 99.9% of the planet’s blogs, male or female. ROCK HUDSON? Please.

You just got some… “tinglies” you can’t face….I understand…it’s a “macho” thing, well enough understood in this particular instance. But don’t confuse your subjective fears with what’s objective reality.

C’mon, just grow up! Even (John) Gielgud and (Laurence) Olivier knew that he was immensely gifted. (Marlon) Brando was scared of him. (Montgomery) Clift, too. Look it up. And let’s see…he’s only been unequaled by about a half-century of all the unbearably awful (Robert) Pattinson stryrofoam debris that’s followed. And he never will be.

Yeah, I think the term “genius” just maybe MIGHT apply, despite all the bad shopping bag and t-shirt merch. Mozart has bad merch. Would you call Mozart “schitcky”? And by the way…he died at 24, not 25. Someone needs a good swift kick in the…oh, you know….tush.(Hey, by the way, you did know that Elvis called him a “genius”, too, didn’t you? Didn’t you?)

Well, Anonymous, where to start? The gist of your response is that our questioning of Dean’s abilities is largely due to repressed or subliminal sexual reasons that we don’t wish to fess up to. As you put it — c’mon, just grow up!

What we write on any given topic is precisely what we think. No routing around in “subtexts” or hidden meanings necessary. While it’s nice to know that Elvis regarded Dean a “genius,” we would have preferred a more rational defense of Dean’s ability in your response. Sorry we didn’t get it. But you are among friendly movie lovers, here, and thanks for writing in.

2 Comments

Like so many things, it seems, the question of Dean’s abilities is in the eye of the beholder. My own opinion is that he didn’t have enough time to truly prove himself. He was barely “blooming” as an actor at the time – what was he, 24, when he died? I don’t know if anyone would disagree that he showed great promise in those first three films, though. As for “schticky ” Method acting, there was a lot of that going around for a long time once Brando made his name.

Most artists who achieve an almost profound level of success are left wide open to be dissected. Dean’s “legend” has very little to do with his talent and artistry. He became a poster boy for teenage rebellion and Hollywood cool. Most of his so- called fans have probably never seen his films. Still, opinion is opinion. James Dean was not and is not everyone’s cup of tea. The legend and hype may be too much to live up to in many viewers eyes. But…to say that Rock Hudson walks away with Giant, I have to question your sanity, let alone your criteria on acceptable film acting. I’ll agree, Dean’s performance in East of Eden is a bit over indulgent. But it has been well documented that Kazan pushed Dean to that level, allowing him to run rampant. Rebel, as a film, is hopelessly dated, but his performance is solid. Yet these films just re-enforce the “misunderstood youth” tag that still is attached to him. Which makes his performance in Giant so relevant. Not only is it an adult role, he doesn’t have that much screen time. He dominates the movie. Hudson is a stiff, a good looking mannequin with a manufactured voice. He was part of the old system that busts looks foolish next to Dean’s textured, layered characterization. Hudson came into his own with the Doris Day comedies of the 60’s, but here he’s left in the dirt. The scene after Dean’s character Jett Rink strikes oil, he comes to flaunt his newfound wealth to Hudson’s character ( whom he loathed). The sense of danger and menace is palpable, and Hudson can only watch with confusion and clenched teeth. Look no further than this scene to determine why Dean the actor was so damn good and why Rock Hudson, sadly, was not.